Chris,
Here is the link to the minutes of the board meeting that I used for my facts:
www.usms.org/.../records-2012-2-26-1.pdf
It states that exemptions were granted for Worlds and Canadian Nationals in the past. That was the precedent that was disregarded. I thought that you were there, but it must have been a different Chris Stevenson (that happens to me a lot BTW, my name is very common). I am pretty sure that FINA or Canadian Masters require that the pool be measured prior to competition for a championship meet. In any case the pool is probably measured periodically. In my opinion, if the pool w/ bulkhead is measured every few months and is ok, times swum there are presumptively valid. If something happens to rebut that presumption, for example everyone at the meet PRs or the bulkhead does not appear to be located properly, then the pool should be re-measured and thereafter measured more frequently.
I think FINA had this one right! Sometimes you have to trust that meet officials do their job properly. BTW, a laser measuring device must be calibrated frequently to insure accuracy and an individual who wants to set a WR in a pool, has more of an incentive to fudge the results or may make an honest mistake. A neutral meet official or FINA representative should ideally make the measurement. To me the "bring your own measuring device idea", is an option of last resort. :canada:
I hope I made my point in an understandable manner and I thank you for reading my opinion!
Yes, I am the same person who is the committee chair, called the meeting, set the agenda and ran it. I think I have a reasonable command of the facts but that is open for debate, of course.
About the measurements, I posted the FINA requirements (masters and not) earlier. My understanding is that Canada only measures that pool once a year, with a surveyor, and that they did not do so at the meet. We never received any measurements done at the meet; certainly none accompanied the record application. From the Rule Book, "it is the responsibility of the swimmer to submit times obtained in recognized events with complete documentation to the appropriate LMSC Top 10 recorder." Documentation includes measurements, if they are needed. In the absence of such documentation (which was YOUR responsibility to collect, not ours) we cannot just "assume" that the pool was okay, no matter how much you would like it to be so.
Previous Canadian Nationals meets have appeared in Top 10, that is true. If those meets were in a bulkhead pool and no measurements were collected, then this was done in ignorance and in violation of the rules, not as an explicit exemption to the rules (the matter has never come before the Committee before). As I said earlier, TTRs and the R&T Committee do not have the authority to disregard the rules in any case.
So why were they accepted? If no record is broken it is up to the TTR of the swimmer's LMSC to verify that the measurements were done (ie, ask the swimmer if s/he collected them) and to hold on to them in case they are ever needed (eg if there is some later question about it, or it was later determined that a record was broken at the meet). The TTR should not submit the results for TT consideration without these measurements. I have half a dozen swimmers in my LMSC who regularly attend USA-S and/or international meets, and they all know the drill: they tell me about the meet beforehand, I check to see if pool has been measured previously and if they use a bulkhead, and if measurements are needed the swimmers get them (usually from the facility manager, but they can collect the measurements themselves if they follow the protocol). Fortress -- who isn't in my LMSC but knows the drill also -- tried to do this for the Canada meet and they refused to do it; that's why she didn't go.
Procedures for results and top ten are being upgraded nowadays, what with the whole national results database, and some shortcomings in older procedures are now being exposed for the first time. Mary Beth, for example, now asks TTRs to verify that they have the pool measurements in their possession for all bulkhead pools (they still don't have to send them in unless there was a national record). When a TTR uploads results to the national database, there is also now a checkbox to verify that the measurements are in hand. Still "on the honor system" to a degree; we are trusting TTRs not to lie to our faces. But in the past, the TTRs may not have been aware of the rules about measurements. There is a lot of turnover in the position (gee, I wonder why...).
The only reason that the vote was 4-3, instead of 7-0, was because previous results from this meet had been accepted. If it had been a straightforward application of the rules then it would not have been controversial at all; in fact, I doubt I would have had a meeting about it. But ultimately the ones who voted against ASKING for an exemption (which may not have been granted anyway) reasoned that "two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, an unknowing mistake made in the past shouldn't cause us to make another in full knowledge of the facts.
Another reason is that, if the rule proposal to accept such results in the future does NOT pass, then where does that leave us with respect to this meet? We accept Canadian Nationals but not others?
Chris,
Here is the link to the minutes of the board meeting that I used for my facts:
www.usms.org/.../records-2012-2-26-1.pdf
It states that exemptions were granted for Worlds and Canadian Nationals in the past. That was the precedent that was disregarded. I thought that you were there, but it must have been a different Chris Stevenson (that happens to me a lot BTW, my name is very common). I am pretty sure that FINA or Canadian Masters require that the pool be measured prior to competition for a championship meet. In any case the pool is probably measured periodically. In my opinion, if the pool w/ bulkhead is measured every few months and is ok, times swum there are presumptively valid. If something happens to rebut that presumption, for example everyone at the meet PRs or the bulkhead does not appear to be located properly, then the pool should be re-measured and thereafter measured more frequently.
I think FINA had this one right! Sometimes you have to trust that meet officials do their job properly. BTW, a laser measuring device must be calibrated frequently to insure accuracy and an individual who wants to set a WR in a pool, has more of an incentive to fudge the results or may make an honest mistake. A neutral meet official or FINA representative should ideally make the measurement. To me the "bring your own measuring device idea", is an option of last resort. :canada:
I hope I made my point in an understandable manner and I thank you for reading my opinion!
Yes, I am the same person who is the committee chair, called the meeting, set the agenda and ran it. I think I have a reasonable command of the facts but that is open for debate, of course.
About the measurements, I posted the FINA requirements (masters and not) earlier. My understanding is that Canada only measures that pool once a year, with a surveyor, and that they did not do so at the meet. We never received any measurements done at the meet; certainly none accompanied the record application. From the Rule Book, "it is the responsibility of the swimmer to submit times obtained in recognized events with complete documentation to the appropriate LMSC Top 10 recorder." Documentation includes measurements, if they are needed. In the absence of such documentation (which was YOUR responsibility to collect, not ours) we cannot just "assume" that the pool was okay, no matter how much you would like it to be so.
Previous Canadian Nationals meets have appeared in Top 10, that is true. If those meets were in a bulkhead pool and no measurements were collected, then this was done in ignorance and in violation of the rules, not as an explicit exemption to the rules (the matter has never come before the Committee before). As I said earlier, TTRs and the R&T Committee do not have the authority to disregard the rules in any case.
So why were they accepted? If no record is broken it is up to the TTR of the swimmer's LMSC to verify that the measurements were done (ie, ask the swimmer if s/he collected them) and to hold on to them in case they are ever needed (eg if there is some later question about it, or it was later determined that a record was broken at the meet). The TTR should not submit the results for TT consideration without these measurements. I have half a dozen swimmers in my LMSC who regularly attend USA-S and/or international meets, and they all know the drill: they tell me about the meet beforehand, I check to see if pool has been measured previously and if they use a bulkhead, and if measurements are needed the swimmers get them (usually from the facility manager, but they can collect the measurements themselves if they follow the protocol). Fortress -- who isn't in my LMSC but knows the drill also -- tried to do this for the Canada meet and they refused to do it; that's why she didn't go.
Procedures for results and top ten are being upgraded nowadays, what with the whole national results database, and some shortcomings in older procedures are now being exposed for the first time. Mary Beth, for example, now asks TTRs to verify that they have the pool measurements in their possession for all bulkhead pools (they still don't have to send them in unless there was a national record). When a TTR uploads results to the national database, there is also now a checkbox to verify that the measurements are in hand. Still "on the honor system" to a degree; we are trusting TTRs not to lie to our faces. But in the past, the TTRs may not have been aware of the rules about measurements. There is a lot of turnover in the position (gee, I wonder why...).
The only reason that the vote was 4-3, instead of 7-0, was because previous results from this meet had been accepted. If it had been a straightforward application of the rules then it would not have been controversial at all; in fact, I doubt I would have had a meeting about it. But ultimately the ones who voted against ASKING for an exemption (which may not have been granted anyway) reasoned that "two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, an unknowing mistake made in the past shouldn't cause us to make another in full knowledge of the facts.
Another reason is that, if the rule proposal to accept such results in the future does NOT pass, then where does that leave us with respect to this meet? We accept Canadian Nationals but not others?
